Fish and Horowitz on Education

Mr. Fish says that  “they’re doing it again, this time by taking a phrase that seems positively benign and even progressive (in a fuzzy-left way) and employing it as the Trojan horse of a dark design. That phrase is “intellectual diversity,” and the vehicle that is bringing it to the streets and coffee shops of your hometown is David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights, which has been the basis of legislation introduced in Congress, has stirred some interest in a number of states, and has been the subject of editorials (both pro and con) in leading newspapers.” Mr. Fish is saying that Mr. Horowitz is taking this innocent bill and using it to manipulate universities.

In response to the topic of ideological criteria in Mr. Horowitz’s article Mr. Fish stated “It’s hard to see how anyone who believes (as I do) that academic work is distinctive in its aims and goals and that its distinctiveness must be protected from political pressures (either external or internal) could find anything to disagree with here. Everything follows from the statement that the pursuit of truth is a – I would say the – central purpose of the university. For the serious embrace of that purpose precludes deciding what the truth is in advance, or ruling out certain accounts of the truth before they have been given a hearing, or making evaluations of those accounts turn on the known or suspected political affiliations of those who present them.” Which in turn means that he agrees with Mr. Horowitz to an extent that these “truths” have been predetermined so that the students are not deprived of their education.

Some people say that that the line between the political and the academic is at times difficult to discern.  Mr. Fish says to keep these separate “the trick is to keep analysis from sliding into advocacy… it is nevertheless a line that can and must be drawn” and to draw this line, he “would go so far as to agree with Horowitz when he criticizes professors who put posters of partisan identification on their office doors and thus announce to the students who come for advice and consultation that they have entered a political space… But it is precisely because the pursuit of truth is the cardinal value of the academy that the value (if it is one) of intellectual diversity should be rejected.”  So Mr. Fish would criticize these partisan professors that cross over this “line that can and must be drawn” but, he would protect them by rejecting this “value of intellectual diversity”?

Horowitz lists among the purposes of a university “the teaching and general development of students to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic society.” Mr. Fish replies with “Teaching, yes – it is my job to introduce students to new materials and equip them with new skills; but I haven’t the slightest idea of how to help students become creative individuals… it is decidedly not my job to produce citizens for a pluralistic society or for any other.”  Mr. Fish is saying that it is not his responsibility to be a mother and teach his students right and wrong. I agree with Mr. Fish because a university is an academic facility and “Citizen building is a legitimate democratic activity, but it is not an academic activity”.

In conclusion these two men do not agree on much other than the truth. Why not just let the truth stand? Why not leave it alone and let it work its self out? There are many truths to an argument but no middle truth therefore, these two men will never completely agree because they side with opposing truths.